Get documents about "ACCESS TO JUSTICE TASK FORCE
Document Sample
LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
REQUEST TO STATE BAR OF ARIZONA BOARD OF GOVERNORS
December 14, 2007
If the concept of ―equal justice for all‖ is to be a reality in Arizona, funding must be
increased to our State’s legal services providers. In 2004, at the recommendation of the State
Bar of Arizona Access to Justice Task Force, the Board of Governors unanimously adopted the
proposition that the legal services providers in Arizona need additional funding to adequately
meet the current and future need of funding to the very poor in civil matters.
Following the work of the Access to Justice Task Force, the Legal Services Committee
now respectfully requests that the Board of Governors petition the Arizona Supreme Court to
amend Rule 38(a), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, as set forth in Appendix C, to
increase funding to our State’s legal services providers by (1) increasing the fees paid by pro hac
vice attorneys by fifteen percent to equal the dues paid by active members of the State Bar of
Arizona and (2) allocating this additional fifteen percent to these organizations.
I. Introduction
The preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct recognizes the important role that
Arizona lawyers provide in assuring that access to justice is available to all Arizonans. It
provides that:
A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact
that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal
assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use
civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because
of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel.
Moreover, Rule 38(e)(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, provides that
―[i]ndividuals admitted to the practice of law in Arizona have a responsibility to provide
competent legal services for all persons, including those unable to pay for such services‖.
Thousands of Arizonans go without legal representation in civil matters each year.1
Although steps have been taken to increase the resources available to Arizona’s legal services
1
The extent of this problem was documented by the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education in a
comprehensive legal needs survey completed earlier this year titled Arizonans Speak Out, and the State Bar of
Arizona’s Access Justice Task Force Report presented to the Board of Governors at its October 17, 2003 meeting.
See also Scott Bales & Joseph Kanefield, Promoting Access to Justice in Arizona: An Urgent Need, Arizona
Attorney, April 2004, at 20.
1
providers, including a commendable voluntary dues opt out program initiated by the Board of
Governors in 2004, the need for assistance is vastly greater than the resources available.2
For millions of low-income Americans, legal services programs represent their only
means to access the justice system. The clients helped by Arizona’s legal services providers are
as diverse as the nation, encompassing all races, ethnic groups, and ages. More than two thirds of
clients funded through the federal Legal Services Corporation, including Arizona’s legal services
providers, are women, many with children. Another 10 percent are senior citizens.3
Legal services clients include the working poor, veterans, Native Americans, family
farmers, people with disabilities, and victims of natural disasters. Many were formerly of
moderate means but became poor as a result of family tragedy, illness, or sudden unemployment.
Federally funded legal services programs help thousands of Americans each year restore their
economic independence through advocacy within the U.S. civil justice system.4
The 2000 U.S. Census found there are more than 937,500 individuals in Arizona—19
percent of the population—who have incomes below 125 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines. This means they are financially eligible for legal services from one of Arizona’s
three LSC-funded providers. In addition, more than 743,000 individuals have incomes between
125 and 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines. Together, almost 1.7 million individuals or
33 percent of Arizonans have incomes below 200 percent of poverty. A chart of the 2007 federal
poverty guidelines in contained in Appendix A.
Earlier this year the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education conducted an
independent large-scale statewide study that establishes definitive data pertaining to the
incidence and prevalence of the unmet civil legal needs of Arizona. This report, titled Arizonans
Speak Out, summarizes the key findings of a telephone survey of 1,067 individuals conducted
over the summer of 2006. The study was completed with a 95 percent confidence level and a 3
percent margin of error.
The results of the survey establish that over 56 percent of the Arizona households with
annual income of $47,000 or less stated they could not afford a private attorney to assist with
their legal needs. Not surprisingly, the gap rises to over 71 percent with the households making
under $32,000 stating they could not afford the legal representation needed. The gap was also
higher than 50 percent for minorities, single heads of households, females, and adults under the
35 years of age. Topping the list of civil legal problem categories are consumer issues (bill
2
On the recommendation of the Access to Justice Task Force, the Board of Governors also has also voted the past
three years to support a $5 increase on the civil filing fee to supplement Arizona’s legal services providers. Senate
Bill 1016 was introduced earlier this year in the Arizona Legislature by Senator Jim Waring at the request of the
State Bar to accomplish this goal. In addition, the Board of Governors has voted to support the Arizona Foundation
for Legal Services and Education ongoing effort to secure legislation that would use interest from escrow accounts
to fund legal services similar to the current Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program. See House Bill
2733 (2007). Even if these proposals become law, the revenue generated will still fall far short of what is needed to
adequately meet the civil legal needs of the poor in Arizona.
3
Legal Services Corporation 2003-04 Annual Report, www.lsc.gov/about/pdfs/AnnualReport2003-2004.pdf, at 8.
4
Id.
2
collection, utility service, and purchases and services), civil family matters, and issues of
discrimination.
Three out of four people interviewed did not know where to receive legal aid services for
their legal needs presented. Forty-one percent of the people tried to take care of the problem
themselves. Twenty-one percent took no action to defend their situation because they didn’t
know what to do, it would cost too much, they didn’t have time, or they feared retaliation.
The Foundation’s findings here in Arizona reflect those recently reported by the Legal
Services Corporation, in its report, Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current
Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans, September 2005. Most significantly, this
report found that for each person who received legal assistance from an LSC-funded program, at
least one eligible client was turned away due to lack of resources. The Report, unanimously
approved by LSC’s Board of Directors, found that a doubling of federal and non-federal support
of LSC grantees would be necessary just to serve the individuals and families who were eligible
for and seeking assistance from LSC-funded programs.
In 2003, the Access to Justice Task Force made a series of recommendation to the Board
of Governors to consider in accomplishing its objective of increasing the resources available to
Arizona’s legal services providers.5 One of the recommendations was allocating a portion of the
pro hac vice fees to fund legal aid. When the final recommendations were made to the Board in
2004, the Task Force decided to wait on this proposal because the pro hac vice program as
administered by the State Bar was still fairly new and it was necessary to determine how much of
the pro hac vice income was necessary to fund the disciplinary matters involving lawyers
appearing pro hac vice.
Now that the program has been in place for several years the statistics obtained from Bar
Counsel establish that attorneys admitted pro hac vice have not been the subject of disciplinary
proceedings at a rate that justifies allocating all of the fees paid by these attorneys solely for
disciplinary purposes.6 There are approximately 500 attorneys admitted per year under the pro
hac vice rule. This compares to approximately 13,000 active members of the State Bar of
5
The Task Force recommended that the State Bar of Arizona evaluate several funding proposals and work to
implement increased funding for legal aid by supporting a surcharge on civil filing fees, a surcharge on civil and
criminal fines, a membership dues opt-out program, a surcharge on document preparation fees, the allocation of pro
hac vice fees, and requesting a percentage of large settlements.
6
Anecdotes compiled by Arizona's representatives to the recent Equal Justice Conference sponsored by the National
Legal Aid and Defender Association in Denver from March 22-24, 2007, support the contention that pro hac vice
admission has no correlation with increased disciplinary activity. At a session on Friday, March 23, 2007, entitled
―Building Support from the Judiciary to Increase Funding for Legal Services‖, a former Supreme Court Justice from
Texas and a current Supreme Court Justice from Mississippi reported on their states’ efforts, without opposition
from their respective State Bars, to direct pro hac vice fees to legal services. (Indeed, under the Texas model, the
fees go directly to the Board of Bar Examiners, rather than to the State Bar, a payment model that makes analytical
sense and construes the pro hac vice fee less as annual dues and more as admission fees wholly apart from the
disciplinary section.) At a session of the Access to Justice chairs on Saturday, March 24, 2007, representatives from
several states with pro hac vice fees directed towards legal aid disputed any contention that increased pro hac vice
leads to increased discipline. There has been a similar absence of disciplinary problems in Arizona among pro hac
vice attorneys, which makes sense given the usage by many out-of-state lawyers of experienced and diligent local
counsel as a means of ensuring compliance with Arizona's practice norms.
3
Arizona. The State Bar receives approximately ten complaints per year involving pro hac vice
attorneys compared with over 2,000 complaints received per year involving members of the State
Bar. Thus, the ratio of complaints per active member is approximately 6 to 1, while compared to
pro hac vice attorneys, the ratio is 50 to 1. Moreover, it is understood that a number of
complaints filed against pro hac vice attorneys are quickly dismissed because they are based on a
misunderstanding that these individuals are practicing law without a license.
Consequently, the information that has come forth over the past several years establishes
that all of the pro hac vice income is not needed to enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct
against pro hac vice attorneys, and therefore the Legal Services Committee proposes that
Arizona follow the lead of several other states in allocating a portion of the pro hac vice income
to provide much needed supplemental funding to Arizona’s legal services providers.
II. Legal Services Committee
The mission of the State Bar of Arizona Legal Services Committee is to study and
recommend ways to meet the legal needs of the indigent and working-poor in Arizona. The
current membership of the Committee is as follows:
The Honorable James G. Blake, (Chair), Scottsdale City Court
Todd F. Lang, (Past-Chair), Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission
Dan L. Bagatell, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA
The Honorable Thomas J. Berning, Tucson City Court
The Honorable J. William Brammer, Arizona Court of Appeals
Anthony B. Ching, Sole Practitioner
Hyung S. Choi, Choi & Fabian PLC
William DeSantiago, Catholic Charities Community Services
Michael J. Donovan, Sole Practitioner
Robert M. Ferrier, Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
Kelly J. Flood, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC
Patricia J. Gerrich, Director, Volunteer Lawyers Program
Mary Dolores Guerra, Phoenix International School of Law
Paula Kay Harms, Office of the Federal Public Defender
Jonae A. Harrison, Internal Revenue Service District Counsel
Levon Henry, Director, DNA-People's Legal Services, Inc.
Rachel C. Hernandez, United States Attorney’s Office
Timothy M Hogan, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
The Honorable Hugh E. Hegyi, Maricopa County Superior Court
The Honorable Patrick Irvine, Arizona Court of Appeals
Lillian Johnson, Community Legal Services
Paul D. Julien, Arizona Supreme Court
Ellen S. Katz, William E. Morris Institute for Justice
Joseph C. Kreamer, Hopkins & Kreamer LLP
The Honorable Virginia A. Mathis, United States District Court of Arizona
Michele M. Mirto, Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc.
Paula C. Nailon, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
4
Ronald Ozer, Ely, Bettini, Ulman & Rosenblatt
Gary M. Restaino, United States Attorney’s Office
David B. Rosenbaum, Osborn Maledon PA
K Royal, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
Maria Salapska, Law Offices of Maria Salapska, PLLC
Diana L. Varela, Arizona Attorney General’s Office
Anthony Young, Director, Southern Arizona Legal Aid
III. Pro Hac Vice Income
Pro hac vice is Latin for ―this time only‖ and refers to the application of an out-of-state
lawyer to appear in court for a particular case, even though a lawyer is not licensed to practice in
that state.
In Arizona, the State Bar administers the pro hac vice program established by the Arizona
Supreme Court. See Rule 33(a)(3)(A), Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. Those appearing pro hac vice are
required to pay a nonrefundable application fee equal to 85% of the current dues paid by active
members of the State Bar of Arizona. Id. A renewal fee in the same amount must be paid for
each additional year that the nonresident attorney continues to act as counsel in the cause. Rule
33(a)(8). The income collected through the pro hac vice fees was approximately $408,000 in
2006, and is projected to be $460,000 in 2007.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have instituted fees that lawyers must
pay to appear pro hac vice. In recent years, several states that did not already have a pro hac vice
fee have instituted one and then used the revenue to fund civil legal services for the poor. In
2001, Oregon became the first to authorize the fee for legal services, followed relatively quickly
by Mississippi, Texas, Missouri and New Mexico.7
In Oregon, the legislature authorized the rule in 2001, which was then implemented by
the state supreme court in 2002. The fee is $250 per case per year and in 2004 generated
$93,000. The legislation provides that the funds will be used for ―legal services provided
through the Legal Services Program established under ORS 9.572‖, which requires the Oregon
State Bar to provide standards and guidelines for legal service providers receiving funding.
In Mississippi, the Supreme Court authorized the pro hac vice rule in early 2003. The fee
is $220, of which is allocated for legal services. The first year it generated approximately
$175,000. The payments are made to the Mississippi Bar to be used to provide legal services to
the indigent.
In Texas, the Texas rule was authorized by the legislature in September, 2003. The fee
per case in Texas is $250, and it brought in about $366,500 in 2005. The funding is administered
7
ABA Project to Expand Resources for Legal Services (PERLS) manual, Innovative Fundraising Ideas for Legal
Services – 2004 Edition, at www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/innovatefund2004.pdf, at p. 25. The
Legal Services Committee would like to thank Kent Moffitt, a second year law student at the Phoenix Law School,
for his help in researching the pro hac vice proposals in the other states.
5
by the Texas IOLTA program, which also administers the state legislative (filing fee surcharge
and appropriation) funds for legal services.
In Missouri, the Supreme Court authorized the rule in 2002. The fee is $100, it generated
$93,500 in 2004, and the funds go to civil legal services programs in the state. In New Mexico,
the Supreme Court authorized the rule in late 2004. The fee is $250, and it is estimated that the
first year revenue will be $75,000. Funds are paid to the New Mexico State Bar Foundation for
distribution to legal services providers. The Resource Development Subcommittee of the Legal
Services and Program Committee of the State Bar is developing a distribution process.
The Rules of Professional Conduct call on Arizona lawyers to devote professional time
and resources to increase access to justice by those unable to afford legal services. Moreover,
Rule 38(e)(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, provides that ―[i]ndividuals admitted to
the practice of law in Arizona have a responsibility to provide competent legal services for all
persons, including those unable to pay for such services‖.
Lawyers who make pro hac vice appearances in Arizona from other states are not likely
to devote their time and resources to help increase access to justice in Arizona simply because
they do not by definition reside or work in Arizona. These lawyers are not required to participate
in programs required of Arizona lawyers such as mandatory arbitration and are not likely to
maintain their client trust accounts with Arizona banks thereby decreasing the amount of interest
revenue generated for Arizona’s legal services providers through the Interest on Lawyers Trust
Accounts (IOLTA) program. See Appendix B. Moreover, these lawyers are unlikely to devote
50 hours a year in pro bono services in Arizona as recommended in E.R. 6.1.
It is appropriate to allocate a portion of the pro hac vice fees generated from these
lawyers for the privilege of appearing and practicing law in Arizona so that they may join the
efforts of the State Bar of Arizona membership in increasing access to justice by the indigent in
our state. Amending Rule 38(a) as set forth in Appendix C to increase the fees paid by pro hac
vice attorneys by fifteen percent and allocating this additional fifteen percent to our legal
services providers is a fair proposal to help accomplish our profession’s commitment to assure
that legal services are available to all persons regardless of their income or status.
IV. Conclusion
The legal needs of the poor in Arizona are not being met under the current system. The
State Bar of Arizona must lead the effort to increase the resources available to our legal services
providers to ensure all Arizonans have access to justice. By using pro hac vice revenues to
supplement the funding to Arizona’s legal services providers many people in Arizona will be
able to obtain the assistance of a lawyer who are not able to under the current system. Moreover,
this allocation will assure that all of those who practice law in Arizona participate in the State
Bar’s mandate of increasing access to justice. This will in turn help our judges do their jobs and
increase the image of the profession in the eyes of the public.
6
APPENDIX A
2007 Federal Poverty Guidelines8
Size of 125 percent of 200 percent of
Family federal poverty federal poverty
guidelines guidelines
1 $12,763 $20,420
2 $17,113 $27,380
3 $21,463 $30,340
4 $25,813 $41,300
5 $30,163 $48,260
6 $34,513 $55,220
7 $38,863 $62,180
8 $43,213 $69,140
125 percent: For family units with more than 8 members, add $4,350 for
each additional member.
200 percent: For family units with more than 8 members, add $6,960 for
each additional member.
8
On February 23, 2007, LSC published its income eligibility guidelines for 2007, which establish maximum income
levels for individuals eligible for LSC-funded civil legal services. LSC's guidelines are 125% of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on January 24, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg.
8114 (Feb. 23, 2007) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 1611), available at
www.lsc.gov/foia2/pdfs/eprr/1611_Appx_A_2007.pdf.
7
APPENDIX B
IOLTA REVENUE & GRANT HISTORY IN ARIZONA
COMPARED TO POVERTY POPULATION & INFLATION9
Year IOLTA IOLTA IOLTA Poverty Grant Dollars
Revenue Revenue in Grants Population Per Poor
Constant Person
1985 Dollars
1985 $985,341 $985,341 $120,087 345,000 $0.35
1986 $1,528,531 $1,497,960 $479,684 484,000 $0.99
1987 $1,727,297 $1,640,932 $856,410 444,000 $1.93
1988 $1,736,482 $1,580,199 $1,006,000 491,000 $2.05
1989 $1,952,431 $1,698,615 $1,405,000 502,000 $2.80
1990 $2,238,837 $1,835,846 $1,524,000 484,000 $3.15
1991 $2,229,261 $1,761,116 $1,763,000 532,000 $3.31
1992 $1,342,009 $1,033,347 $1,396,000 607,000 $2.30
1993 $1,044,296 $783,222 $670,000 615,000 $1.09
1994 $1,159,356 $846,330 $670,000 673,000 $1.00
1995 $1,320,033 $937,223 $750,000 700,000 $1.07
1996 $1,391,380 $946,138 $816,500 980,000 $0.83
1997 $1,508,607 $995,681 $874,000 797,000 $1.10
1998 $1,530,045 $994,529 $966,500 812,000 $1.19
1999 $1,280,671 $806,823 $978,500 579,000 $1.69
2000 $1,617,652 $970,591 $788,000 590,000 $1.34
2001 $1,463,193 $834,020 $948,500 778,000 $1.22
2002 $1,263,044 $992,899 731,707 $1.36
2003 $1,113,004 $734,143 782,551 $0.94
2004 $1,122,915 $678,666 800,027 $0.85
2005 $1,877,997 $763,859 827,837 $0.92
2006 $2,419,232 $1,080,468 958,392 $1.13
9
This table was compiled from information provided by the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education.
8
APPENDIX C
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 38, RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
Rule 38. Special Exceptions to Standard Examination and Admission Process
(a) Admission Pro Hac Vice.
1. Eligibility. An attorney who is not a member of the State Bar of Arizona, but is currently a
member in good standing of the bar of another state or eligible to practice before the highest
court in any state, territory or insular possession of the United States (hereinafter called a
nonresident attorney) and who is of good moral character and is familiar with the ethics,
professionalism and practices of the legal profession in the State of Arizona, may appear as
counsel pro hac vice in a particular case before any state or local court, board or administrative
agency in the State of Arizona upon compliance with this rule. However, no person is eligible to
appear as counsel pursuant to this rule if that person (a) is a resident of the State of Arizona, or
(b) is regularly employed in the State of Arizona, or (c) is regularly engaged in substantial
business, professional, or other activities in the State of Arizona.
2. Association of Local Counsel. No nonresident attorney may appear pro hac vice before any
court, board or administrative agency of this state unless the nonresident attorney has
associated in that cause an attorney who is a member in good standing of the State Bar of
Arizona (hereinafter called local counsel). The name of local counsel shall appear on all notices,
orders, pleadings, and other documents filed in the cause. Local counsel may be required to
personally appear and participate in pretrial conferences, hearings, trials, or other proceedings
conducted before the court, board, or administrative agency when the court, board, or
administrative agency deems such appearance and participation appropriate. Local counsel
associating with a nonresident attorney in a particular cause shall accept joint responsibility with
the nonresident attorney to the client, to opposing parties and counsel, and to court, board, or
administrative agency in that particular cause.
3. Procedure for Applying. Appearance pro hac vice in a cause is subject to the discretion and
approval of the court, board, or administrative agency where such cause is pending. A
nonresident attorney desiring to appear pro hac vice under this rule shall comply with the
procedures set forth herein for each matter where pro hac vice status is requested. For good
cause shown, a court, board, or administrative agency may permit a nonresident attorney to
appear pro hac vice on a temporary basis prior to the completion by the nonresident attorney of
the application procedures set forth herein. At the time such temporary admission is granted,
the court, board, or administrative agency shall specify a time period for the nonresident
attorney to complete the application procedures, and any temporary pro hac vice admission
shall be revoked in the event of subsequent failure by the nonresident attorney to so complete
the application procedures.
A. Verified Application to State Bar of Arizona. In order to appear as counsel in any matter
pending before a court, board, or administrative agency in the State of Arizona, a nonresident
attorney shall file with the State Bar of Arizona an original and one copy of a verified application
together with a certificate from the state bar or from the clerk of the highest admitting court of
each state, territory or insular possession of the United States in which the nonresident attorney
9
has been admitted to practice law certifying the nonresident attorney's date of admission to
such jurisdiction and the current status of the nonresident attorney's membership or eligibility to
practice therein and a non-refundable application fee equal to 85% of the current dues paid by
active members of the State Bar of Arizona for the calendar year in which such application is
filed; provided that not more than one application fee may be required per nonresident attorney
for consolidated or related matters regardless of how many applications are made in the
consolidated or related proceedings by the nonresident attorney; and further provided that the
requirement of an application fee shall be waived to permit pro bono representation of an
indigent client or clients. An attorney seeking a fee waiver under this provision shall include in
the application a verification that all clients represented in the action are indigent and that no
attorney fee shall be paid by the client. "Indigent" is defined as those individuals whose gross
income is at or below 125% of the federal poverty guidelines, as calculated in conformity with
the eligibility requirements for Legal Services Corporation grantees, currently codified at 45
C.F.R. Section 1611.
FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE NON-REFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEE PAID PURSUANT TO
THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO A CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND TO BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE ARIZONA FOUNDATION FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND
EDUCATION AND SHALL BE USED EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND ORGANIZATIONS THAT
PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO INDIGENT PERSONS IN CIVIL CASES.
B. Notice of Receipt by State Bar of Complete Application. Upon receipt of the verified
application and fee from the nonresident attorney as described above, the State Bar of Arizona
shall issue to local counsel a Notice of Receipt of Complete Application which states: (1)
whether the nonresident attorney has previously made any application or motion pursuant to
this rule within the preceding three years; (2) the date of any such application or motion; and (3)
whether the application or motion was granted or denied by the court or administrative agency.
The State Bar of Arizona Notice shall include as exhibits: (1) the original verified application and
(2) the original certificate(s) of good standing. Copies of verified applications, certificates of
good standing and orders granting, denying or revoking applications to appear pro hac vice
shall be retained by the State Bar of Arizona for three (3) years.
C. Motion to Associate Counsel Pro Hac Vice. Local counsel shall file a motion to associate
counsel pro hac vice with the court, board, or administrative agency where the cause is
pending, together with proof of service on all parties in accordance with Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure. The motion to associate counsel pro hac vice shall include as exhibits: (1) the
original verified application; (2) the original certificates of good standing; and (3) the State Bar of
Arizona Notice. The motion to associate counsel pro hac vice shall also be accompanied by a
proposed order granting or denying the motion. A copy of each order granting or denying the
motion as entered by the court, board, or administrative agency shall be mailed by local counsel
to the State Bar of Arizona.
D. Entry of Order. The order granting or denying the motion to associate counsel pro hac vice
shall be entered by the court, board, or administrative agency no later than 20 days (exclusive
of weekends and holidays) after the filing of such motion. A nonresident attorney shall make no
appearance in a cause until the court, board, or administrative agency where the cause is
pending enters the order granting the motion to associate counsel pro hac vice. The order
granting pro hac vice status shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of entry, and
shall be renewed for subsequent one year periods upon compliance with renewal procedures as
specified herein.
10
4. Verified Application. The verified application required by this rule shall be on a form approved
by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Arizona and available at the clerk of the court,
board, or administrative agency where such cause is pending and shall state:
A. the title of the case or cause, court, board, or agency and docket number in which the
nonresident attorney will be seeking to appear pro hac vice, and whether this case or cause is a
related or consolidated matter for which the nonresident attorney has previously applied to
appear pro hac vice;
B. the nonresident attorney's residence and office address;
C. the court(s) to which the nonresident attorney has been admitted to practice and the date(s)
of such admission;
D. that the nonresident attorney is a member in good standing of such court(s);
E. that the nonresident attorney is not currently disbarred or suspended in any court;
F. whether the nonresident attorney is currently subject to any pending disciplinary proceeding
by any court, agency or organization authorized to discipline attorneys at law, and if so pending,
the application shall specify the jurisdiction, the nature of the matter under investigation and the
name and address of the disciplinary authority investigating the matter;
G. whether the nonresident attorney has ever been disciplined by any court, agency, or
organization authorized to discipline attorneys at law;
H. the court, board, or administrative agency, title of cause and docket number in which the
nonresident attorney has filed an application to appear as counsel under this rule in this state in
the preceding three years, the date of each application, and whether it was granted;
I. the name, address and telephone number of local counsel;
J. the name of each party in the cause and the name and address of counsel of record who is
appearing for each party;
K. that the nonresident attorney certifies that he or she shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the
courts and agencies of the State of Arizona and to the State Bar of Arizona with respect to the
law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as an active member of
the State Bar of Arizona, as provided in Rule 46(b), Rules of the Supreme Court;
L. that the nonresident will review and comply with appropriate rules of procedure as required in
the underlying cause; and
M. that the nonresident attorney understands and shall comply with the standards of
professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of Arizona.
5. Discretion. The granting or denial of a motion to associate counsel pro hac vice pursuant to
this rule by the court, board, or administrative agency is discretionary. The court, board, or
administrative agency may revoke the authority of a nonresident attorney to make continued
appearances pursuant to this rule. Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any
11
person pursuant to this rule may be the cause for denial of the motion to associate counsel pro
hac vice. Such special circumstances may include, but are not limited to, the following:
A. a showing that the cause involves a complex area of law in which the nonresident attorney
possesses a special expertise, or
B. a lack of local counsel with expertise in the area of law involved in the cause.
6. Transfer. The nonresident attorney shall be deemed admitted in the event venue in such
action is transferred to another county or court or is appealed; provided, however, that the court
having jurisdiction over such transferred or appealed cause may revoke the authority of the
nonresident attorney to appear pro hac vice.
7. Continuing Duties to Advise of Changes in Status. A nonresident attorney admitted pro hac
vice shall have the continuing obligation during the period of such admission to promptly advise
the State Bar of Arizona of a disposition made of pending charges or the institution of any new
disciplinary proceedings or investigations. The State Bar of Arizona shall then advise any court,
board, or administrative agency where the nonresident attorney has been admitted pro hac vice
of any such information. A nonresident attorney shall promptly advise the State Bar of Arizona if
permission to appear pro hac vice pursuant to this rule is revoked by any court, board, or
administrative agency.
8. Renewal of Application. On or before each anniversary date of the filing of the verified
application with the State Bar of Arizona, local counsel must certify to the State Bar of Arizona
whether (a) the nonresident attorney continues to act as counsel in the cause; or (b) such cause
has been adjudicated to a final conclusion or is otherwise concluded. Any nonresident attorney
who continues to act as counsel in the cause shall remit to the State Bar of Arizona on or before
each anniversary date a fee equal to 85% of the current dues paid by active members of the
State Bar of Arizona for the calendar year in which such renewal is sought, unless the
nonresident attorney is exclusively engaged in pro bono representation of an indigent client or
clients. No fee shall be paid under this section if the fee was waived under paragraph (a)(3)(A)
of this rule, the client remains indigent, and no attorney fee shall be paid by the client.
FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE RENEWAL FEE PAID PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL
BE DEPOSITED INTO A CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE
ARIZONA FOUNDATION FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND EDUCATION AND SHALL BE USED
EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO
INDIGENT PERSONS IN CIVIL CASES.
9. Failure to Renew. Any nonresident attorney who continues to appear pro hac vice in a cause
and fails to pay the renewal fees set forth in paragraph (a)(8) of this rule shall be suspended
from appearance in any cause upon the expiration of a period of thirty days from the
anniversary date. The executive director of the State Bar of Arizona shall notify the nonresident
attorney and local counsel of the suspension and shall file a certified copy of the notice with the
court, board or administrative agency where the cause is filed. The nonresident attorney may be
reinstated upon the payment of fees set forth in paragraph (a)(8) of this rule and a $50 late
penalty. Upon payment of all accrued fees and late penalty, the executive director shall reinstate
the nonresident attorney and shall certify such reinstatement to the court, board, or
administrative agency where the cause is filed.
12
10. Annual Reporting. The State Bar of Arizona shall prepare an annual report which shall list:
(a) all applications filed pursuant to this rule during the preceding twelve months; (b) the names
of all applicants; and (c) whether the application was granted or denied. The report shall be
available for inspection at the offices of the State Bar of Arizona, and shall be provided to the
Supreme Court.
11. Disciplinary Jurisdiction of the State Bar of Arizona. As provided in Rule 46(b), Rules of the
Supreme Court, a nonresident attorney admitted pro hac vice pursuant to these rules shall be
subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and agencies of the State of Arizona and to the State Bar
of Arizona with respect to the laws and rules of this state governing the conduct and discipline of
attorneys to the same extent as an active member of the State Bar of Arizona.
***
13
